E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

I am offering a rational argument on why democracy is not inherently sacred but has to be valid and informed (like any decision). You reply by saying I just don't like the outcome for personal reasons. That is hardly a rational reply to my argument.

You said that politicians do not have any particular expertise at their job. Then you accuse the government of being incompetent (no argument here). Which means that some competencies must be involved in running a country, which means that politicians are at least supposed to have such expertise.

You must have missed the bit where I argue that the result is only as valid as the process by which it was attained, and that as a consequence do-overs are not unusual, e.g. Austria.

But obviously your strongest argument is: "You just don't like the outcome".

So you are saying that if the UK ends up in the EEA, free movement is maintained and membership fees continue to be paid, the electorate's will has been respected?

 

Ok forget it as a reply to your argument, it is still your stance. You really don't like the outcome for personal reasons. Reasons you've made quite clear here. You have derided the British public who you live among, you've stated your intention to leave the country, your main focus is ensuring your own financial future and you believe the referendum has jeopardised that. That's not necessarily bad to have those reasons but lets not pretend that you have some non-biased, perfectly rational view on all of this. I see it as the main motivator for the position you've taken.

Democracy should be informed but that is not always the case. We live in the real world. I mean who gets to decide what’s informed and what’s not informed. Although I've no doubt you could think of someone that could do the job. The reality is you put the case forward, set a date and put the question to the people and that's basically it. It's far from ideal, but there isn't much better than it either.

You don't have to tell me about do-overs. The we had two referendums on the Lisbon treaty. The trick is to keep having referendums until you get the outcome you want.

The more mechanisms that are put in place to interfere or invalidate a result, the more open to exploitation it is and the further it goes from being a democratic process. Like the Lisbon treaty do overs or say having an aptitude test or some other barrier to entry. That's why doing it once right is so important in order to hold up the democratic process. If people can interfere with the outcome they will. That's just people.

If the UK ends up in the EEA, the referendum question will be satiated. It would be the most pointless move in the world, but yes. The will of the people is only gauged to the level of the question asked of them. It is why I said there should have been a plan in place and why the referendum should have been to accept the plan or stay in the EU. As I've said it was entirely ham fisted.

 

Regardless of (what you perceive to be) my personal views, I have presented rational arguments, which I invite you to challenge rationally. If you have to resort to my personal feelings instead, I can only conclude that you have no rational argument.

Who gets to decide who is informed? How about the electorate, 70% of who did not feel that they were?

As an aside: "derided the British public who you live among". Well, sorry if this immigrant is forgetting himself. At least I keep my opinion to this forum. Perhaps the British public ought to consider how all this public xenophobic campaigning against immigrants made us feel, living amongst them.

 

You have in the past stated that these type of questions shouldn't be asked of the people because they are stupid or whatever. Which is why I state that you tend towards a totalitarian style of government. As you appear to want to forgo democratic processes in favour of a ruler making the decisions. I think this wanting to forgo referendums is the result of having your plans pissed on by the British public and not some deep seated thought. That's where I'm coming from.

So do you have a referendum asking if they were informed on the previous referendum? Is that how it's meant to work? Maybe you could do it on the same day. Tick the box for your choice and tick this other box if you think you are informed enough on the matter to have your vote counted.

 

I get what you're saying, but this type of question is hugely complicated --as evidenced by the fact that even the Brexiteers still do not understand the implications (including that it may not actually be possible at all)-- so how meaningful is it to ask the electorate? It's like asking a cancer patient which type of chemotherapy they want. They generally don't understand what either does, the positive and negative effects of either are hard to predict in the individual patient and the long-term effects are decidedly uncertain either way. And in the end, it makes very little difference to their illness experience and life afterwards. Cancer patients just want to get better and live their lives, and tend to leave the complex medical decisions to their consultant.

The question is irrelevant to the issues that the electorate cares about and struggles with: affordable housing, the NHS, jobs and wages, decent schools for their kids. That is why the Brexiteers did their best to make spurious links between these issues and EU membership. But the fact is that EU membership does not affect these issues at all.

So who wants a Brexit really, and why?

How about the government comes up with a plan, like, and negotiates a new deal with the EU, and when these negotiations are complete and the electorate knows exactly what "leaving the EU" is going to mean, we have another referendum:

1. Go ahead with this new deal you've negotiated;
2. On seconds thoughts, if this is what "Leaving" means, let's just stay in the EU after all.

This way, Brexiteers have to deliver the unicorns to get the vote, not just promise them. They have to show how it actually matters.

 

There are like a million ways to have a better referendum. Almost anything would be better than what actually went down.

 

Neither is the electorate going to get anything remotely like what they thought they voted for. All the decisions that matter will be made by politicians without input from the electorate, and they are not suddenly going to change their ways and "listen to the poor people". Brexit may not even be possible at all, because dumb **** Liam Fox is too busy talking down British business to realise that the UK has no WTO tariff schedule.

Democracy? You decide.

 

The way Britain is set-up referendums are a kind of weird thing. The EU is part of our constitution now so we couldn't leave without a referendum because we'd have to change the constitution. From what I understand, the politicians in Britain could just say, screw it we're out and just go for it, no public vote, no nothing. With Britain's common law dealy the referendums have less meaning. Especially if they are advisory (which to me is silly). I know you don't like it, but at least May is sticking it out and up holding the referendum. Trying to over turn the result is not good for democracy in the UK over the longer term. It would begin a process of trying to manipulate future things to suit. Yes slippery slope and all that, but if not that, at the very least its a dangerous precedent to set. Yes more dangerous than the effects of leaving the EU.

As I've said above somewhere, Cameron really messed it up. The approach to the referendum was wrong, the question was wrong. But it is what it is and the result isn't going to change. The public will get what they ticked on the box. They won't get the unicorns as you put it, but they'll certainly be out of the EU in some way shape or form.

Surely the most important decision is the one the British public made that triggered the set of events to leave and put the politicians, negotiators and who ever else in a position to make the subsequent decisions. Choosing to push the first domino so to speak. I do understand the public can't be involved in every single aspect of running the country. But without question, such an upheaval should not be left to just the politicians. It's such a massive shift in the country’s direction, to me it would be unspeakable not to put it to a public vote. Just like constitutional changes its a core alteration to the country, no one person or elite group should be able to make such a decision on behalf of everyone.

 

They could, but then they'd be exiting an international treaty without following its due exit procedure (which includes a referendum to sanction triggering Article 50), which is a breach of international law, and that would have major implications for countries' keenness to establish bilateral trade agreements with the UK (which are, after all, also international treaties). The likes of John Redwood ("let's repeal the 1972 ECA!" --as if that is possible at all without vaporising 40 years of UK law) don't seem to realise that.

The government doesn't have to overturn the result, but it could acknowledge its advisory nature and see it as a direction in which the electorate wants the country to go in the long term rather than a mandate it needs to deliver by 2020. A Brexit is possible if it is done over a few decades with an EEA position as an intermediary stage. In fact I'd say it's only possible this way. But the electorate was promised unicorns, so now it expects unicorns.

There's the thing: the UK can't just default to the WTO --it has no tariff schedule. It would have to draw one up and get it ratified by 163 countries before it can even trade at all, so a soft Brexit into the EEA may be the only option on the table.

I think politicians should not be left to make such decisions either. I think that government should be an ongoing dialogue between politicians and the electorate. The question should be: "You tell us what you want, and we'll see if it is possible to deliver, and how, and when. And we'll check in with you regularly whether you think it's heading in the right direction". There should be a mutual understanding that not everything is always possible, so not everything should be promised nor demanded. That is why referendums should be advisory, not absolutely binding (people may want something that it turns out is not deliverable, or at a fatal price), and why it is OK to do follow-up referenda on the same topic.

 

I didn't realise triggering article 50 required a referendum and so it should.

A referendum could be on anything. What you are stating there is not really advisory its just extending the expected length of the exit. It is still following the mandate of the referendum.

I think you've got the cart before the horse in terms of how to approach referendums. No one should have a referendum on something they can't deliver. That defeats the point of giving people a choice. Do you want A or B. Oh you want A? Well too bad because A is impossible and your not getting it. What would be the point in that? You tell us what you want and we'll see, is just a get out. A means to kick that can further down the road. An indefinite postponement before something has ever started. A referendum is about coming to a crossroads and resolving it. Making a decision about future operation.

Your thinking in the context of asking people about an unknown as Brexit is. But really you shouldn't use the Brexit referendum as a reference. The question should have been, do we enact this plan we came up with to leave the EU or do we stay in the EU. You need a defined question, where people can know what they are getting. The Brexit referendum was way too nebulous.

What your talking about is more like that site you log on to and sign petitions to get the politicians to debate whatever topic. Basically if people are interested we'll at least discuss it and consider it. Referendums are about answering a well defined question, Brexit was a mess in that regard. People still don't know what they are going to get. That's not really how its done. It didn't have to be a mess. It is possible to create a proper, well defined question about leaving the EU that is suitable for a referendum. I think the fact it was such a mess was purely down to Cameron's arrogance. No need to do it right I'm going to win. LOL!

 

And because we live in the real world politicians shouldn't be allowed to subvert the democratic process, living in the real world means when it is it has real world repercussions for everyone.

The person who get to decide is the person putting the X in the box, if they tell you their poorly informed or very poorly informed it's probably safe to say they don't have the information required to make an informed decision, what ever that informed decision turns out to be.

Maybe that's a little hyperbolic, i assume you're talking about the two referendums held in Ireland over the Lisbon treaty, the first was a rejection and the second accepted it after amendments were made, that's how the democratic process works BTW, something gets proposed that not everyone agrees on and it gets rejected, amendments are made and it gets put to a vote again, repeat until it passes a vote, it's called compromise, it's called politics, it's called trying to find a middle ground.

According to polling data it wasn't done right, is it a democratic process if 30% of the people don't have enough information to make informed choices, doesn't it end up being little more than a coin flip without even knowing why you're flipping the coin.

Indeed and that's what i personally find most galling, the very people who botched the referendum are the people we've just handed more power too.

I could understand a vote to leave if the people who campaigned for it had a coherent argument for leaving, i may not have agreed with them but at least I'd know they had a logical and consistent idea of what they wanted, sadly as things stand now i can't shake the feeling we've handed the clowns the keys to the lions enclosure.

The thing is we already seem to be a long way down a different slippery slope, one where politicians can tell the electorate they'll get jam today and jam tomorrow without any checks or balances on whether that's a big fat lie, one where misinformation goes unchallenged and promises are broken within hours of getting the result they want.

 

It does. EU rules even state that for the referendum to be valid there should be a minimum 60% Leave majority on a minimum 75% turnout, so arguably the EU could have challenged it. It won't --there's no point-- but it's increasingly obvious that the EU is now just leaning back and watching the UK dig itself into a deep hole.

Which frankly is another reason for a do-over. The referendum is really a sounding out of vague public feeling.

True, but that does not absolve Vote Leave either. Not having a faintest idea of how to deliver a Brexit is pretty damaging to democracy, the economy and the reputation of Britain abroad. What is most frustrating is that the hard-core Brexiteers who shout loudest to get on with it still don't have a plan and still don't understand the problems. All they are doing is making it harder to deliver on it by feeding those unrealistic expectations.

I mean: Liam Fox is in a turf war with Boris Johnson and talking down British business. Boris Johnson joins the empty "Get in with it!" campaign without offering any plan (still after May's job, I see). David Davis talked a lot and said nothing in his parliamental speech and has gone quiet again. It is obvious that they don't know what to do.

 

Not having a plan isn't damaging to democracy, at least IMO it isn't, it just makes them look like bumbling idiots who don't understand what they're talking about.

What's damaging to democracy is how both sides were able to get away with misrepresenting the facts and basically lying to the electorate, a similar thing is happening across the pond with Trump, if politicians are allowed to get away with saying whatever they like no matter how misleading or false then ultimately democracy means nothing.

It's really no wonder people have little faith in democracy when politicians are allowed to get away with what amounts to false advertising, if you're lied to enough you end up not believing anything or anyone.

 

Basically your main point of contention is that the public was not informed. However, we can't get a true gauge of what informed is. A poll that indicates x number of people believed themselves to be uninformed, is an estimate, not an actual representation of the numbers. How many that believed themselves to be informed were actually uninformed. How many that believe themselves to be uninformed knew enough to make a reasonable decision. You can't get an accurate number on informed, without first defining informed and then testing everyone to ensure they meet the standard of informed. You are thinking idealistically here. That people can be confident they know enough to make a decision. There is no way to truly assess it, without seriously interfering in the democratic process.

This is why we have the democracy sucks, just not as much as all the others idea. No process is ideal and that is one of the negatives of democracy and there is no work around for it. Maybe Civic classes in school or other attempts to encourage people to become more engaged. But when it comes to the booths, they have to do their own research and come to their own decision themselves. In the real world not many will actually do the necessary work.

Basically you are rightly annoyed at a big problem with democracy. But there is no democratic solution to that problem. You can't throw the result of referendum away on the back of some surveys. Do you not see how ripe for abuse that would be? As I've said, the more opportunities that are in place to interfere with the result of a vote the more likely it will be interfered with. See Tom Scott's why e-voting is bad. It basically opens a pandora's box of possible result manipulation and interference. The process must be as clean and as simple as possible to avoid over turning of legitimate results.

Fair point on the Lisbon treaty.

 

I can't think of a better possible starting point to be honest.

 

Not really, my main point is some of the public said they were not informed, that's a judgment only that person can make, it's subjective not objective, the judgment on whether an individual has enough information to make a choice is only something they know or can say.

Using something that's cropped up as an analogy (yes i know they often don't work ) if a cancer patient is asked to pick treatment A or B the amount of information needed for them to make that choice is going to be different for each patient but ultimately the patient decides how informed they need to be before choosing.

That again is down to each individual, some people would say they're not bovvered, some, like in the EU referendum, are going to be asking for more information, some would have already made up their minds.

It's not about forcing democracy on people or testing them, it's about providing the information and debating the issues people want, it's not a top down thing, like a patient doctor relationship the doctor provides basic information and then it's down to the patient to ask for more information if they want or need it.

I get the feeling we're coming at this from different angles.

From my perspective reforming the political process and rerunning the referendum under new rules would prevent future abuse, mainly because it would send a clear message to the politicians that they can't keep misleading the electorate and pedalling misinformation.

EDIT: Having thought about it me wanting a rerun on those grounds is probably personal bias creeping in, although on such an important issues I'd argue it's important to get the process right.

I can, the Advertising Standards Authority is powerless to act on misleading political advertising, that should change IMO, politics (in the public space) should be governed by the same authorities that govern everyday life, i won't post a long list of links but if you search Google for "advertising standards eu referendum" you'll get an idea of how unregulated politicking is.

 

So what exactly do you want, because its not really coming across to me in your posts.

The advertising standards can only apply standards to tangible, well defined things. It would be nice to force politicians to be honest but there is no way to do it.

I think much of what you want requires control based on things that are just way too subjective. Like degrees of honesty, self-appraisal of knowledge and self-definition of informed. Reform on how referendums are carried out is probably the most realistic idea.

 

That depends on how you want to define tangible, well defined things, the ASA has rules that say adverts shouldn't over-exaggerates, omits key information, or makes ambiguous or unclear claims in a way that’s likely to confuse or mislead us, something both sides were guilty of (IMO).

The campaign, again both sides of it, was even highly criticised in a select committee report but that seems to have been a waste of money as (afaik) no actions going to be taken over it, part of the report says...

Without action those lurid, misleading and bogus claims are just going to increase and ultimately (IMO) that's more damaging to democracy than rerunning a referendum because politicians deliberately set-out to deceive the electorate.

 

Indeed. Although I agree that:

...as in: scepticism is good, the risk is that it will turn into cynicism: a chronic disbelief of politicians that leads to voter disengagement. If you know that they are lying, but you can't hold them to account for it, what's the point in voting for anything anymore?

 

Really I was suggesting heavy scepticism, which starts off with not believing anything.

The thing about advertising is it is about a product or service that is typically fixed and can be measured. A political statement is typically not like that. The snippet that you have presented demonstrates that there is a problem but is not proposing any solution.

Politicians are full of crap, always have been always will be. There's no getting around it. The problem was not that politicians did what they have always done, the problem was the way the referendum was setup. It enabled them to have a field day, because it was deciding over whether to accept something that had not been determined yet (the exit plan) or to stay. If the referendum had been set up properly by defining an exit plan first the unavoidable political BS would have been reined in to a more acceptable level.